 "Recipe for chaos and confusion" | 2010-03-06 |
| - Reviewed By Bob Cook from Fort Myers, Florida |
Disturbing, but illuminating - like shining a flashlight into a garbage pail. If only this book were just a visit with the movers and shakers of the 1960's it would be more interesting. But President Obama and his intimates recommend this book today!
I was there as a rebellious teenager and loved other books by Jerry Ruben, Abby Hoffman and Chairman Mao. It was titillating to read them, but like Zap comics and nose-hits, most of us grew up and left hell-raising behind. Alinsky bares his soul in the dedication "to Lucifer". |
| |
 "Total destruction of the US" | 2010-03-01 |
| - Reviewed By An Avid Reader from Tucson, AZ |
| If Americans take seriously what Alinsky wrote, they will be responsible for the total destruction of the US as we know it. He was a socialist, a progressive, a hater of the US constitution. Obama today is ruling according to Alinsky's dictates. That means tyranny! I recommend that no one read this piece of trash. |
| |
 "Saul D. Alinsky = Radicalism "Light"" | 2010-03-01 |
| - Reviewed By Dr B Leland Baker from Colorado Springs, CO |
Written in the 1970s, the first time I read "Rules for Radicals" was over 30 years ago. At the time I thought some of his `tactics' were taken from a script of Animal House, and genuinely laughed at his sophomoric attempt to be a "radical" ... such as eating beans and farting in a concert ... how funny!
Over three decades later, I read that Hillary Clinton had actually written a paper on Saul Alinsky while she attended her rich-kids college on the east coast; and that Alinsky has apparently shaped some political thought on the left. His concepts in "Rules for Radicals" may have had an irritating impact on a department store, or small corporation, but in no way would have been a catalyst for a true Revolutionary or Radicals' take-over of Cuba, Viet Nam, North Korea or any other country. Che and Mao would be disappointed.
Alinsky has a few ideas in his "rules" of power tactics that could easily have been developed during a high school student-council meeting and are not true tactics but mere concepts:
1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
3. Go outside the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
8. Keep the pressure on.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter-side.
12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
13. Pick the target, freeze it, and polarize it.
Unfortunately, the concept of God, morals, truth, and integrity do not moderate Alinsky's diatribe, making him just another unethical rabble rouser, who with the fullness of time will be recognized as causing as many problems for his followers as good.
Alinsky separates people into the "Haves" (the Rich), the "Have-Nots" (the poor), and the "Have-a-little, Want-Mores" (middle class); this is simplistic, and obviously has Marxist class-warfare origins. Despite the author's obvious infatuation with communism - in any modern communist society of the last century, he would probably have been executed for the same type of speech or activity.
What did surprise me was his hollow emphasis on "hope" and "change" (p. 103), which were obvious themes in our last election. However, to close on a positive note, with a little creativity, Tea Party organizers could use Alinsky's concepts on humor, satire and ridicule against the socialist elites that currently lead both political parties. Perhaps Tea Partiers should start yelling "Power to the People!" ... after all, the former hippies of the 1960s are now "the Man" leading the "Establishment" in Washington DC.
Dr. B Leland Baker, author of Tea Party Revival, The Conscience of a Conservative Reborn
Tea Party Revival: The Conscience of a Conservative Reborn: The Tea Party Revolt Against Unconstrained Spending and Growth of the Federal Government
|
| |
 "Radical War!!!!!!!!!!" | 2010-02-08 |
| - Reviewed By Seth Skversky from Philadelphia |
One of the first reactions I had after reading Rules for Radicals was haven't I read this before? It seemed somewhat nostalgic of Sun Tzu's infamous book The Art of War. The Art of War is one of my favorite books and it captivated me that these books written centuries apart could have such similar messages. What I then began to think about was the idea that maybe business, war, or even more currently grassroots mobilization has not changed all that much over the years. It is a simple thought and maybe an even simpler concept, but what if the rules to play the game have always been the same and the people that fail at this game are simply those that fail to learn them? The rules are simple; timing is everything and knowing your opponent's objective and every move is just as important as your own because their moves and objectives guide yours. After all Rules for Radicals is just that, a play book on how to not only win but excel in grassroots mobilization and even more radical (no pun intended) in revolution.
"Does the end justify the means?" Alinsky suggests that this is the "perennial" question asked throughout the years and is a question he focuses a great deal on in this book. I was surprised when I read this chapter in particular, because as a radical I thought Alinsky would have more concern for personal ethics. I am not sure why I felt this way, but I suppose it has something to do with my opinion that the majority of people involved in grassroots mobilization are deeply committed to the cause they are fighting for. So much so that any violation of their personal ethics would inherently violate the cause they are fighting for. I believe that it comes down to rationalization. If we as "radicals" can rationalize the means for which we achieve the ends to ourselves then the means no matter the cost is successful. I am not so naive to think that at some point personal ethics will not have to be violated in business, war, or even revolution, but I do believe that this is a decision that every person must make for themselves. I do not feel that Alinsky would agree with me on this matter, in fact I believe he would group me in with the people he calls the "non-doers." Either way, I am not opposed to doing things that may seem "ethically" unjust if I can rationalize it to myself that the means is justified but what I cannot do no matter what is violate my own personal sense of ethics. In any case I believe for a "radical" our sense of personal ethics is a true dictator of who we are as revolutionaries and if we violate that code we inherently violate the cause we are fighting for.
After reading this book I feel that there is an inherent underlining theme throughout the entire book. The idea that the rules are simple and easy to interpret, but that it is people who take these rules out of context and use them for their own personal gain. "The corruption of power is not in power, but in ourselves" (51). It was not until I read this quote that my feelings about the idea that people are inherently selfish was justified. The idea that power is just that, a word, or even in some cases arguably. Suddenly when if all of the connotations are taken out of the word "power" the word is not scary it is just another word. It is only when people add these connotations to this simple word that the meaning is misconstrued and more often abused. I then began to think about power and what makes it so powerful that it has the ability to corrupt the best of people into the most negative and corrupt person possible. One thing that I was found when thinking about this idea of power was that the need for power is written inherently into the way in which we do business, in the way our political system is run and even within the dynamics of a family unit. Thus, our need or better yet, hunger for power is learned at such a young age that the need and desire for it only seem natural. Even the idea of the manipulation of power which Alinsky suggest is also learned in the family unit when a child learns to play one parent against another. It is at this age that not only the need and hunger for power are learned but the most dangerous of all, the rewards.
There is one more quote I must address before I conclude this review, it is found in the beginning of the book before the text even begins. "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology, leaves off and history begins or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom-Lucifer"(Saul Alinksy). I was going to try very hard to ignore this quote but I feel I cannot. It is not that this quote offends my religious beliefs or views but to applaud the devil regardless is untactful and disturbing. I read this quote before I even began reading the book and I seriously just looked in shock for a few seconds. Now this is not to say that I don't see the point that Alinksy was trying to make by using this quote, but I must say this is when those personal ethics that he is not too fond of should come into play or perhaps his idea of everything being for the better good. If some one could be as kind to explain to me how congratulating the devil is for the better good? I apologize for my feelings and opinions on this quote but I feel this quote in a sense darkened an otherwise bright book. But then again, maybe I am reading too much into it and it was simply inserted to do just what it has done, cause controversy. In that case, well done Alinsky. |
| |
| "Obama Administration playbook to 'transform' our country into the 'paradise of communism' (yes, that's a quote)" | 2010-02-04 |
| - Reviewed By D. McKinnon from St. Petersburg, FL |
Alisnky advises, when you come up against political opposition, 'step on the gas'..... and what do the Congress and Administration plan to do in regard to the progressive agenda..... more than one has actually used the term, 'step on the gas'. Pelosi said she would jump the fence, and if that failed, pole-vault it in or sky-dive it in.... to force healthcare reform on the American people. The only problem they're having is that the middle class was not paying attention to what the progressives were doing when Alinsky wrote this book, and in his words were asleep. They are no longer asleep and they are definitely paying attention - which is why I bought and read their playbook.... and so should you.
Remember, progressives like Obama (who taught this book in college), Hillary (who wrote her thesis on this man and his book), and the czars and the administration are all radical progressives who are following Alinsky's playbook on how to logically proceed 'to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order or the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage-- the political paradise of communism." (pg 10) |
| |
| "Revolting but engaging" | 2010-01-19 |
| - Reviewed By Franken55 from Washington, US |
Alinsky starts out comparing this (his) book to "The Prince", and up to a point the parallel is apt. Both are books that encourage and illustrate amoral approaches to life. Yes, the end justifies the means; with one exception. This is if your community organization starts getting "rightist" ideas. THEN it needs to be shut down.
Mr. Alinsky was certainly able to organize people, and did it in real life in a number of quite challenging contexts. But his real talent is sowing discord; most of his approach is based on getting people angry and dissatisfied. He tears down, that's for sure. He also says that he builds up, but I don't believe that. He states that the organizer manipulates the persons he organizes. Yes, any leader is engaging in encouraging/challenging/ manipulating at some level, because it goes with the territory. But he goes beyond that to agitation and the fomenting of anger. This is not leadership but demagoguery; he is not treating the members of his organization as human beings. He does not treat his adversaries as human beings, either. And that is the giveaway; this kind of ideological approach is what poisons our national discourse, politics at all levels, and even our everyday life.
I had heard that talk show hosts (sowers of discord and anger themselves) were discussing this book, and I had also heard of the Alinsky-Obama connection. At least so far, our President does not seem to be taking this approach to governing our country. That kind of street theatre is tough enough to make work at the local level; at the national level it should be a non-starter, but it really hasn't been tested yet.
The book's dedication to Lucifer is apt. Hell is full of anger, outrage, resentment, envy and pride. Saul Alinsky will show you how to bring this to Earth. |
| |
International Available
